Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43046 Docket No. MW-43904 18-3-NRAB-00003-160707

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (IBT Rail Conference

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to accept Mr. T. Hobbs' bid/application for a bulletined relief track foreman on July 14, 2015 (Carrier's File T080415-01 TRR).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant T. Hobbs shall immediately be awarded the relief track foreman position and compensated for any lost time or pay that he would have received had he been properly awarded the position."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Rule 13(b) of the Agreement provides that "[b]ulletin notice covering new position or vacancies, except those of laborer, will be posted for a period of five working days ...." On Wednesday, July 8, 2015, the Carrier posted a Relief Track Foreman position with the provision that bids would be accepted until 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2015. After the bid period closed, the Carrier awarded that position to the senior bidder, R. Cox.

According to the Organization, on July 14, 2015 (the last day for bidding the Relief Track Foreman position), the Claimant was operating an end loader at the Number 5 Yards and was told to stay late and work overtime. It is asserted that the Claimant planned to place a bid on the Relief Track Foreman position on July 14, 2015, but by the time he was able to get to the location for placing his bid and because he was required to work late, it was 5:00 p.m. and the bid had been taken down. The Claimant nevertheless submitted a bid after the bidding period had closed. The Claimant's bid was not considered by the Carrier and the senior employee who placed a bid (Cox) was awarded the Relief Track Foreman positon.

The Carrier followed the bidding process required by Rule 13(b). The Relief Track Foreman position was posted for the required time period and was taken down in accord with the posting. Aside from the Claimant's working on July 14, 2015 - and even if the Board does not consider that date - the record shows that the Claimant worked on July 8 and 13, 2015 and had ample opportunities to bid on the position on those dates. The Claimant's failure to bid in a timely fashion cannot be held against the Carrier. This claim therefore lacks merit.

The Claimant asserts that when he attempted to place his bid on the last day of the bidding period (July 14, 2015) and when saw that the bulletin had been taken down, he spoke with Track Manager W. Bailey who told the Claimant he should not worry because they had not yet gone through the bids and it would be permissible for the Claimant to place his bid. The Claimant's position is that Track Manager Bailey's statement should allow his late bid to be considered.

Track Manager Bailey states that he received a call from the Claimant on July 15, 2015 and the Claimant expressed concern about the awarding of the position and Bailey told the Claimant that if an error was made, it would be corrected. However, Bailey specifically denies that the Claimant called him on July 14, 2015 (the closing day of the bid) to express his concern about missing the 3:30 p.m. deadline for submitting his bid. According to Bailey, he told the Claimant that if an error was not made in the directive set forth in the bulletin, the Claimant would need to go to the Organization and ask them to look into it.

The Claimant's assertions that Track Manager Bailey gave him permission to place a late bid is in conflict in this record. With the burden on the Organization and the Board having no way to resolve that factual conflict, the Claimant's position that he was given permission to place a late bid is not sufficiently supported and does not change the result.

The bottom line is that the Claimant had ample opportunities to place a timely bid and his failure to do so requires denial of this claim.

AWARD

Claim denied.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of May 2018.